Anarchy or Governent II

[Just AnotherPerson]

The basic premise of "government" as most people understand it is as follows: Individuals cannot be trusted to govern themselves, so they need to be governed.

But the question becomes: If individuals cannot be trusted to govern themselves, then how can individuals be trusted to govern others?

The "state", which is what most people mean when they use the word "government", was created by ancient warlords and dictators as a means of consolidating their own power and authority over increasing amounts of people and territory. The earliest rulers - in places like Egypt, for example - ruled as literal Gods. In that respect, the state is one of the world's oldest religions, and certainly the most deadly. In fact, no other institution has caused more death, misery, and waste than government has, yet it persists in spite of all the carnage it has produced. This demonstrates the power of propaganda.

Impressive! You really know what you are talking about! Damn, thank you for being normal!

[MisterVeritis]

Impressive! You really know what you are talking about! Damn, thank you for being normal!

LOL. He is as goofy as you are.

[Chris]

LOL. He is as goofy as you are.

Why post if you have nothing to contribute?

[MisterVeritis]

Why post if you have nothing to contribute?

Mine comment clearly contributed.

[Captdon]

The basic premise of "government" as most people understand it is as follows: Individuals cannot be trusted to govern themselves, so they need to be governed.

But the question becomes: If individuals cannot be trusted to govern themselves, then how can individuals be trusted to govern others?

The "state", which is what most people mean when they use the word "government", was created by ancient warlords and dictators as a means of consolidating their own power and authority over increasing amounts of people and territory. The earliest rulers - in places like Egypt, for example - ruled as literal Gods. In that respect, the state is one of the world's oldest religions, and certainly the most deadly. In fact, no other institution has caused more death, misery, and waste than government has, yet it persists in spite of all the carnage it has produced. This demonstrates the power of propaganda.

I believe in government by the people we elect. We certainly can't have a democracy here.

To argue against government is to argue for anarchy. That's not a workable way to live.Anarchy will always lead to dictatorship. How you expect to have anything without government is Marxist thinking.

[donttread]

There are groups of people in our own nation who are very unhappy with the corruption of the curent system, understandably so. No one can blame a person for being fed up with a corrupt establishment. Every politician is bought and paid for and the American people are for sale.

There is an idea that if peaceful means do not work this nation will be changed by force not considering for loss of life. Here is something that comes seriously to my mind. Yes in history we have had revolution but you have to take into account the differences in that world and in this current one. There is almost no comparison. If a revolution like the one of our history were to play out it would end nothing like the revolution of the past.

All we need is some basic deep looking. Look at all of the angles no matter how small. Consider if the consequences outweigh the risks. We should consider for the loss of life.

During the revolution the infrastructure was much different than the infrastructure we have now. If there was damage to properties perhaps some houses would have burned down, and stores, and back then bridges were made of wood. In our modern world infrastructure is much more complex. the destruction would be much greater. If you have seen images of Kiev, or of Syria that is much what our nation would look like if we started a war on our own soil.

Something else to consider is that weaponry of the past was much different. We now have access to weapons that would decimate our infrastructure. We are not talking bayonets here. We are talking bombs and machine guns.

Another thing the loss of life would be different than the revolution of the past because there were less people alive then. The same war fought on our soil today with our modern weaponry would bring a staggering loss of life.

Also during the revolution people were a lot tougher. They had to work hard to get everything even the children had to pull their own weight. But the people of our day are much weaker. Our children grew up in front of tv's and computers. Some of them don't even go outside to play, some have never even watched the stars. People of today are much more delicate. If we thrust them into a volatile situation with war they would not withstand it.

One more thing you may think that you are doing these people a favor by liberating them from their oppressors. But when the infrastructure is damaged how will the rubble ever be cleared? Will we wait for dirt to cover it then build on top of it? Consider this as well. If we start the war to liberate we will have innocent civilian casualties. You have to know when you kill the innocent you will be creating instant rebel factions. Those whos children die by your hand will rise up to kill yours in turn.

The world you wished to create will just look like an average day in the middle east. You will have taken a beautiful nation mostly at peace and turned it into a desolate wasteland. Think it through completely from beginning to end. It may not be the result you had in mind. It is not difficult to do.

In order to free the people who are oppressed you would kill the oppressed, how can you free the oppressed when they are no longer alive to be freed? Will you free them from their lives, in order that they may be free?

I am not a believer in anarchy or revolution I always say EVOLUTION not revolution. I believe we can use peaceful means to change our world, an end corruption. I do not believe that we must shed the blood of the innocent, or destroy our nation so that we will not be oppressed. There are better ways.

I have started this thread in the past 9-01-2016

http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...-or-Government

I agree that we do not need a revolution at this time. However, the relationship between the government and it's governed isn't static. It's constantly getting worse , so there may come a day when there are no other options.
As for how it would turn out, don't be too sure. For example our imperialism swats armies down like flies but often cannot fully handle "insurgencies" AKA rebels. And even "tory types" would not put up with troops killing Amerians on the 6:00 O'clock news ever night and neither would a great many of the troops.

[Chris]

I believe in government by the people we elect. We certainly can't have a democracy here.

To argue against government is to argue for anarchy. That's not a workable way to live.Anarchy will always lead to dictatorship. How you expect to have anything without government is Marxist thinking.

Marx was the epitome of authoritarianism. He saw the people only as a mass and didn't trust them.

The market, inasmuch as the government tries to manage it, is anarchistic. See Leonard E. Read's "I, Pencil."

[Just AnotherPerson]

I think it is wrong to take something from a person that you do not like. I had a family member who hated another family member but had no problem asking for help from that family member that they hated, but they would never do anything in return for that family member. I had a talk with them and told them if we hate a person so much it is not right to take from them.

If our establishment has elitest views and beileves the common man is not good enough or smart enough to be anything but a slave. It is wrong to take from that person. You take 1/2 of that persons paycheck. You will allow them to believe falsley that they live in a democracy. You will happily let that person serve and die for your nation. You do it through trickery. You give that person a sense of WE and they lay down their life for WE.

But in reality you have no care or respect for that person, they are regarded as front line infantry. That explains alot. That explains why we dont even take care of our vets. You can see the proof all around homeless vets and hurt vets not being taken care of. But even thought the proof is all around. The poor younlings take the lie the bait hook line and sinker and become another statistic.

We should not use a person who we loath. We should not take from them, especially not their life. We should not teach them that they have rights and freedom. We should not teach them that they matter if they do not. We teach those lies becasue we know what is right, and then we do what is wrong, but pretend we arent. I had a family member who was mistreating their children, in public they talked sweetly to the child and made it look as though they were the best parents in the world. But at home they would abuse and say violent words to the children. Why? Why did they act different in public? It is becasue those types of actions are unnaceptable. That is what our nation is doing to us.

[donttread]

Then you have the worst form of government, democracy, run by the whims of an ever changing majority. On a small, local scale, the people might be abl;e to selg-govern, but not on the scale of the US.

As a libertarian I hold to the non-aggression principle. Sometimes, though, given man's basic violent nature, I have my doubts. People will always think they can get what they want by coercive political means rather than voluntary economic means.

Wouldn't total anarchy produce even more bullying and tilted tables than a truly limited government?

[Dr. Who]

A revolution will be the end of your liberals. We cut their power and stop food deliveries and it's over. No muss, no fuss.

Like all liberals you don't know or understand middle America. We would outlast you.

Maybe and maybe not. You might have food, but little else. Coastal America would have imports. One bad weather year and much of middle America could be wiped out by drought and tornadoes that they don't seem to have had any historical problem with taking government charity to fix, nevermind the flooding of the Mississippi river. If that were to happen then middle America would have starvation and thus internal fighting for food and water. All of those bank loans keeping farms afloat would disappear. Seasonal labor to keep those massive industrial farms functional would disappear. Crops could rot in the fields. Hungry people could change sides. Middle America conveniently forgets how much help it gets from the rest of America when times are tough. Let's also not forget how much middle American agriculture is dedicated to non-food crops. Middle American cities are not going to survive on corn grown for biofuel. It's inedible. Let's not also forget all of the farm subsidies that allow farmers to make a living or the fact that family farms growing food crops are few and far between. Fewer than 5% of middle American farms are family owned and operated and are likely to grow more than a single crop. Most farm production is intended for export and concentrates on things like corn and wheat. I wouldn't be so certain that middle America would necessarily outlast the rest of America.

It would be a shame to be living in farm country and not have enough to eat.